Re: [tied] Middle English Plurals

>
> >> And what about the (eventually abortive) generalisation
> >> of <-en> in the South (which was a process of the same
> >> nature)? Was it due to interaction witha still different
> >> language?
>
> > No. The South adopted the unpractical <-en> exactly
> > _because_ the North adopted the practical <-es>; cf the
> > reaction of Caxton's woman.
>
> Drivel. To the (very limited) extent that it permits any
> relevant inference at all, the story points in the exact
> opposite direction: she didn't even recognize the northern
> form. You can't deliberately react against something of
> which you're not aware in the first place. The notion of
> impractical <-en> and practical <-es> is also drivel.
>

She certainly recognized enough of it to recognize it as a "French"
plural, which apparently was the then current linguistic idea where
this plural came from.

As for practical <-s>, 1600's Dutch saw a profusion of <-plurals>,
eg. 'arms', now 'armen'. Poets etc on the other hand tried to keep
alive unpractical stuff like the dat.pl. -n.

Torsten